Talk:G. Edward Griffin

NPOV? No

This page definitely reads as though Griffin himself wrote it. He is notable alright, but not for what he thinks. Of those 10 books he wrote, check how many were self-published (i.e. by the "foundation" he set up for the purpose). Self-publishing is for people who cannot persuade anyone else to print up their nonsense. Given the generally low quality of literature today, how bad must something be if NO ONE will publish it?

Griffin is notable as a fraud (e.g. laetrile/"vitamin" B-17 fake cancer "cure") and as a conspiracy theorist par excellence, closely tied to the founder of the John Birch Society. Yet there is nothing remotely hinting at his controversial reputation in this piece.

Ain't neutral. Marianc 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MarianContrarian

and p.s.

The "Telly" awards: you pay to enter and the "awards" make money by selling you silver-plated statuettes. From the lengthy list of "winners" it would appear that as long as you pay, you win. http://www.tellyawards.com/winners/

Marianc 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MarianC

Npov?

This page smells like it was written by someone related to G. Edward Griffin. My searches show that he is a conspiracy theorist, creationist and a quack as opposed to the stellar image that this page paints. I would like to mark it with NPOV but do not know how. I will update it when I find time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.170.231 (talk • contribs) .

• Your searches come up with that because he writes about topics thought to be conspiracy related, there is no conspiracy theory in reality, his book "The Creature From Jekyll Island" is EXTREMELY well sourced and IS very notable. He did actually choose to self-publish, he didn't want publishers screwing with his books.

Facts: Edward Griffin is Edward Griffin

A simple google search shows that Edward Griffin is in fact exactly who he is and the author of this information about Griffin appears to be correct. The author is merely stating that Edward Griffin has researched the world banks and other topics and formed his own opinion about it, which of course is who Edward Griffen really is. Writing the actual facts of who Edward Griffin is and what he has writing about is not an opinion, but calling him a conspiracy theorist, creationist and a quack is. If you had presented real facts that where obviously different from that of the author of Mr. Griffins biography maybe you would have a case for disagreeing and disputing the authenticity of this Wikipedia biography, but you have failed to do that and have resorted to name calling which is not a fact or the biography of Edward Griffin. In the conclusion of your argument you sum it up with "I will update it when I find time" when you are arguing a point which should be based on facts please post the facts not hear say and ill get back to this later, it really gives your discussion no credibility at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xzula (talk • contribs) .

You are right. I should have simply included the link to Vitamin B17 rather than this rant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.170.231 (talk • contribs) .

Ummm, for what it's worth, calling Mr. Griffin a "conspiracy theorist" may or may not be an opinion -- but in any case according to the material in the Wikipedia article on Griffin himself, that label could be accurate. According to the main Griffin article, he has even produced at least one book or video with "conspiracy" in the title. People who propound conspiracy theories are conspiracy theorists. Maybe the Griffin article is not accurate and maybe Mr. Griffin doesn't really push those conspiracy theories -- I don't know. But it would be illogical to say someone has published books on such and such a conspiracy theory and then say, "but he's not a conspiracy theorist."

For example, I have a "theory" that certain people involved in the Watergate scandal were engaged in a "conspiracy." By definition, that makes me a "conspiracy theorist" on that particular point. (I can't put my finger on the data right now, but I seem to recall that some people were actually convicted of criminal conspiracy in the Watergate case, by the way, and served jail time for it.)

Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" may or may not have negative connotations -- and the person using that term may or may not intend something pejorative or derogatory. However, it just won't do for Wikipedia to state in one place that someone is pushing a conspiracy theory, and at the same time to deny the label of "conspiracy theorist" to that person in another place merely because the term happens to carry negative connotations. By the way, if we're thinking about neutral point of view, NPOV would not require that we not label someone a conspiracy theorist if that person actually is one. It's like saying you can't call a convicted felon a "convicted felon" because that term has negative connotations.

Again, I don't know anything about Mr. Griffin or his writings, other than what I've seen here in Wikipedia. So I don't know for a fact whether the label is or is not accurate if applied to him. Yours, Famspear 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get why he is called a, "conspiracy theorist." I mean, pointing out that bankers are greedy and power hungry isn't exactly, "grassy knoll" material. I posted more accurate descriptions of things here in wikipedia only to have them removed because they were supposedly bogus or biased, when I had thought I was just adding in an objective angle to the story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arische (talk • contribs) 04:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

In Edward Griffin's own words about being called a conspiracy theorists by those who do not have facts and simply retort to emotional loaded words to ide their own insecurity about truth:

'There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase “conspiracy theory” with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected. If I am to be called a conspiracy theorist, then Flaherty cannot object if I were to call him a conspiracy poo-pooist. The later group is a ridiculous bunch, indeed, in view of the fact that conspiracies are so common throughout history. Very few major events of the past have occurred in the absence of conspiracies. To think that our modern age must be an exception is not rational. Facts are either true or false. If we disagree with a fact, our job is to explain why, not to use emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree with us.'<ref>http://realityzone.stores.yahoo.net/creature2.html#critique<ref> ~~~~

Copyrighted Material?

A large amount of this introduction appears to be lifted directly from the biography of Griffin given in his book The Creature From Jekyll Island. -FurciferRNB

If this is so then I would just as well say excise any violative content. Thane Eichenauer 22:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting is not a copyright violation. The article may be improperly citing its source, but that's not a copyright violation. Wjhonson 16:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reconstruction

I'm undertaking a reconstruction of the article -Theblackbay 15:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added the photo, created the headings for the publications and such, still working on refs for the many books , and expanded the personal info.-Theblackbay 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To FurciferRNB It was before I have changed it, so i does not even resemble that anylonger anyhow also i have added the following redirects:

Ed G. Griffin

Edward Griffin

Ed Griffin

Thank you to Wjhonson for the vast expansion of works. -Theblackbay 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr Griffin?

Is there a reason why he is called MR Griffin. Is this a qualification or are we just being polite? 0L1 09:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a sign of respect nothing more if you would like me to call you Mr 0L1 I would do so also, this is in construction so you can change anything you feel is not correct, i have no prob with Edward Griffin also.-Theblackbay 16:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources?

This article seems to cry out for secondary, i.e. independant sources. Some news articles on this guy, even book reviews would be something. I tried googling without success. Please add these; it's not possible to write a balanced article otherwise. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, I feel that this article could use more on his relationship with creationism and academic responses to his work. Here's an article about somebody that believes cancer is caused by a lack of vitamin B17, certainly there must be somebody that contradicts this. I'm tempted to add the following tag (or something similar) to it: {{ExpertVerify|October 2006}}

--Delta Tango | Talk 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not a section of specific criticism of Griffin's works?

It is hard to immagine that someone as controversial as Edward Griffin, who takes on every form of established authority, every establishment, period, would go unchallenged for so many years. Obviously someone like him will have a rather noticeable tale of detractors. Yet, Wikipedia refuses to allow anyone to help show the controversial nature of Griffin's work. Why? Is Wikipedia part of Mr. Griffin's conspiracy?rafvrab 12:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, in this case most critics resort to saying he's a conspiracy theorist and provide little evidence, which can be explained by the fact that he is extremely well sourced. Oh, and most people avoid talking about him.